There is little evidence that spy cameras, whether overt or covert, deter crime.

You will recall the discovery of secret spy cameras on 25 of the 42 floors of the City Park Co-op. They were found during a routine check of the smoke detectors.

The board of the co-op swiftly sent a letter to tenants, advising them of this fact and serving notice that the board was looking into things.

I talked to a couple of residents about their reaction to the letter, and to the cameras. They were, as you might expect, upset.

They were not the only ones.

Heather Moyer, the immediate past-president of the co-op, declined an interview she had previously agreed to; she did not respond to my questions about why she would not speak.

Robert Fisher, the current president, also declined to be interviewed; he said the board is pursuing an investigation, and he does not want to comment at this time

Oh, but many co-op members wrote.

Some suggested, indignantly, that if a person has done nothing wrong, then he or she has nothing to fear from any cameras, secret or not, no matter who installed them or why, and no matter who is recording or viewing — or possibly distributing — the images.

Frankly, ladies and gentlemen, anyone who would give up his or her rights so eagerly does not deserve your respect, nor do they have mine.

An aside: there is little evidence that spy cameras, whether overt or covert, are at all useful in deterring crime. And as we know from certain images of a politician with a crack pipe in his hand, video evidence of bad behaviour rarely leads to criminal charges.

But I digress.

Some residents of City Park suggested to me that the cameras were installed, on the advice of the fire department, to catch someone in the act of setting mischief fires.

But Deputy Chief Mike McCoy said the fire department would never, under any circumstances, recommend the installation of secret cameras.

He also said that the incidence of fires at City Park is “typical of highrises in the city.” He added that the co-op “is not on the radar of the fire department.” And he said, “If there were multiple calls, it would raise a red flag for us.”

But even if that were the case, arson is a crime, and therefore a police matter; would the cops ever suggest the use of hidden cameras to spy on tenants in an apartment complex?

Police spokesman Mark Pugash said, “If we advise people to put in cameras, they’d be overt.”

I pressed him about the use of secret cameras. He said, “I can’t imagine a situation where we would advise people to do that.” And then he echoed McCoy, saying he could not find anything to support any concerns of arson at City Park.

Finally, I had a note from Gordon Scott, of Strategic Improvement Company. Scott is a consultant in surveillance and security matters, and is particularly well-informed. He wrote:

“The temporary use of any covert hallway surveillance is not appropriate. On balance, such an intrusion, however well managed, into the daily life of residents is, I believe, a greater threat to the well-being of residents than any possible benefit.”

But even if there were a temporary need for secret cameras — and I’d argue that’s a stretch — he observed: “The product of any such covert surveillance must be stored in the same system that records all other CCTV. The same controls on who views, downloads or distributes images must apply. Safeguards must exist to ensure that no unauthorized use of the video footage occurs. The covert camera must be removed when its mission is accomplished.”

And then he added, “25 covert cameras in use at once seems preposterous. Separate management and storage of the product of the covert cameras on a hidden laptop suggests that security personnel cannot be trusted with the investigation.

“If that is the case . . . there are more serious issues to deal with than even the covert cameras. It is hard to imagine a state of uncontrolled criminality and anti-social behaviour so vast and widespread that such a system would be required.”

I couldn’t have put it better.

But questions remain at City Park: who installed the cameras, why were they secret, where were the images recorded, and who saw them? Or rather, is anyone still seeing them? None of this is clear.

More on thestar.com

We value respectful and thoughtful discussion. Readers are encouraged to flag comments that fail to meet the standards outlined in our
Community Code of Conduct.
For further information, including our legal guidelines, please see our full website
Terms and Conditions.